- Joined
- Oct 8, 2002
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 4
A question that comes up every now and again here is whether the UDRP can be used to recover stolen domain names in the absence of a trademark claim. There has been a small and mixed bag of UDRP cases on this line, and I've noted that the result is panelist-dependent. For anyone keeping score:
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/309943.htm
However, although it appears from the record that Complainant was the victim of fraudulent activity, the purpose of the Policy is to deal with abusive domain name registrations by deterring the abusive practice known as ââ¬Åcybersquatting.ââ¬Â Thus, since the instant case primarily involves a fraudulent registration transfer, not cybersquatting, the Panel finds that this dispute is outside the scope of the Policy. See Decker v. Antwer, FA 263584 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 28, 2004) (ââ¬Åince the instant case does not involve the practice of cybersquatting and is more accurately described as a fraudulent registration transfer, the Panel finds that this dispute may be more suitable in a court of law as it exceeds the scope of the Policy.ââ¬Â); see also Digital-Logic AG v. Krechman, FA 235827 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 8, 2004) (ââ¬Å[T]he Panel finds that this dispute raises potential contractual issues and suggests fraudulent activity on the part of Respondent, which failed to complete the transfer of the domain name at issue and subsequently renewed the name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the dispute is beyond the scope of the Policy.ââ¬Â); see also Commercial Publââ¬â¢g Co. v. EarthComm., Inc., FA 95013 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 20, 2000) (stating that the Policyââ¬â¢s administrative procedure is ââ¬Åintended only for the relatively narrow class of cases of ââ¬Ëabusive registrations.ââ¬â¢Ã¢â¬Â Cases where registered domain names are subject to legitimate disputes are relegated to the courts.).
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/309943.htm
However, although it appears from the record that Complainant was the victim of fraudulent activity, the purpose of the Policy is to deal with abusive domain name registrations by deterring the abusive practice known as ââ¬Åcybersquatting.ââ¬Â Thus, since the instant case primarily involves a fraudulent registration transfer, not cybersquatting, the Panel finds that this dispute is outside the scope of the Policy. See Decker v. Antwer, FA 263584 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 28, 2004) (ââ¬Å